Xbox Live: No Longer the Gold Standard

Xbox Live Gold is an antiquated dinosaur that no longer fits within this industry. It's an exploitive service that takes advantage of people's innate desire to connect with others, charging significant money ($59.99/year, or $9.99/month) for features given away for free on competing platforms. As the next generation approaches, it's time for Microsoft to shelve this nickel-and-diming venture once and for all.

When you look at the facts between XBL, PSN and Steam, it seems more than a little ridiculous that XBL still gets away with charging for online features.

The simplest way to break it down in the XBL vs PSN debate in my book is: If everything on XBL was made free excluding cross game chat which was still $60/£40, would you still pay for it knowing that you were only paying for features literally EVERY other platform does for free?

Apart from the obvious (not being able to play online at all) without paying, i think it's got to such a stage where long term XBL users have just been so accustomed to paying that they feel that:

A) If they are paying, then by default it MUST be better or worth it somehow.

or B) Admitting it's a rip-off now and saying it's not worth it after shelling out hundreds, if not 1000's, of £/$ over the years would be like admitting defeat and confessing to being fooled all those years and not wanting to look silly.

Regardless of platform, title or company, online features should ALWAYS be free, especially if they want to go down the Online Pass route we have been travelling. Can anyone honestly say it's fair to have to buy a £400 console, buy a £40 game, pay up to £10 per month for your internet, pay £40 MS to allow you access to your own internet and if the game is preowned or rented, having to shell out £8 AGAIN just to play the full product on the disc?

It's all getting a bit out of hand and, especially MS, if they just swallowed their pride and admitted noone has the money to go through that process for 5 more years next gen, and ditched the XBL fee, they'd be on to an absolute winner not just in the eyes of Xbox gamers, but the industry in general.

paying for xbl is silly but i guess we all are individuals and free to do whatever as long as its not hurting anyone.

ive got an xbox or several but i realise that i shouldn't be paying extra to play online because i can play most of its games on ps3 and way more. also the few extra xbox exclusives i dont need to experience online for xbox because i dont need to experience every game online or play. i love gears of war but ill just have to go without playing them all because i refuse to pay for xbl.

Yo, faceless...that was a really good comment. I bubbled you up. Couldn't have said it better myself. I have had both a ps3 and an xbox and I can tell you that aside from playing halo and gears online it's really not worth it playing 60 dollars a year just to play those few games online. I also felt like when I had a gold membership I would feel like I was wasting it by just playing single player games.

the ps3 was attacked relentlessly for its launch price. for those that bought a launch 360 an live 7 years later the get it cheap now didn't pay off.. ps3 cost more at launch but was the better investment

Being forced to pay for P2P online gameplay is outrageous. By all means, charge for the advanced features like party chat but I can guarantee that there are millions upon millions of willing Xbox customers in waiting (like myself) who would snap up a next generation Xbox, minus the ransom to play half of its games online that you paid full dollar for.

Microsoft have been investing in first party studios and this is an absolutely positive move for next gen, but I just wish they would go a step further, swallow their pride and stop charging for basic connectivity where it's neither necessary nor pro-consumer.

@ omi25p

PS3 hasn't and won't ever get party functionality. PS Vita has it for free, as should PS4.

I don't think that Xbox Live Gold is worth the money that I spend for it, however, I pay for it because I value the social features such as cross game chat and party chat. These features are great and I wish the PS3 had them, but because they aren't on the PS3, it is hard for me to have the same experience when I play PS3 online.

I know there are a lot of people on this site who will argue that it isn't a big deal, but I got so accustomed to using cross game and party chat on Xbox 360 that I find myself hard pressed to play PS3 online because of the lack of these features.

Honestly, that is all it comes down to for me sadly. I don't care much about the apps of either service, but PS+ is a great service for that easily puts Xbox Live Gold to shame. I'm not a fan boy of either.

However, I'm so excited about next generation because I know that the PS4 will implement these features and if I find myself not having to pay a yearly fee to use them on PSN, then Microsoft has lost me as a customer, because I know Microsoft will still charge for Xbox Live. Now will Microsoft and Sony please quit stalling and bring on the next generation!!

And i completely agree with you that it doesn´t make any sense to pay for multiplayer on XBOXlive if every one else is offering for free. Its free for the PS3, Vita, Wii U, Wii, 3DS, PC and many other platforms so what reason does Microsoft have for charging for it? None at all in my opinion and the only reason why they can get away with this is because XBOX gamers (since the first XBOX) are used to paying for multiplayer which is why they continue to pay for it.

I used to own a 360 and i used to have a subscription to gold so i know what it was like to pay for online multiplayer. But the problem that i had with the service is that it didn't provide me with anything that i couldn't get on the PC. So i made a decision to sell my 360 and buy a PS3. I had a regular PSN account for a short while but then i saw Plus offered for 40€ and in September i joined PlayStation plus. Ever since i joined plus i manage to download a ton of games that i haven't played before. Which got me thinking why gold subscribers are not demanding a similar service with XBOXlive gold? I seriously cant believe that XBOX owners don't want something like plus because it provides a lot more content than XBOXive and in my opinion its a service worth paying for.

Thanks for your comment as it was a very thoughtful, logical and very pleasurable one to read. However you might receive some degree of backlash from the fans who refuse to accept the truth about XboxLive.

excellent comment very well put and my sentiment exactly however MS will charge while people will pay for it and i cannot see them turning away easy money.

I would rather that all the people willing to pay for Xbox live ON Xbox live and away from me as i no longer use Xbox for gaming though i do still use LIVE on windows for FREE from time to time but only if i have to.

My point being that what MS provide is no different from the other platforms, so all they are essentially doing is standing in your way demanding more $ for the privelage of using their service which offers nothing different.

Refer to my comment #1.1 for a full explanation of what i'm trying to say so i don't have to retype my whole point here.

It's frustrating when people completely miss the point you're trying to make, isn't it? Happens all time in specific regard to this topic.

People think you're hating on a service. No!!! Xbox Live is excellent service. What is under scrutiny (and rightly so) is Microsoft's decision to charge their customers for something that is free in ecosystems outside Xbox. Basic online play or P2P. Look it up people. That shouldn't be a ransom/selling point for Xbox Live. That should be a guarantee for the $60 you pay for each of your games. Have MS charge $60 a year for advanced features only - I have absolutely no issues with that.

And discount arguments shouldn't even apply here since it's about the principle, not about how much you can save on things you shouldn't have to consider paying for to begin with.

It's funny that people that don't know where to look cry about paying for XBL.

If you actually were a person that played on the 360 and paid for XBL you would already find deals everywhere.

The dashboard when you become a silver member has $1 for 1 month deals...and guess what you can cancel the auto renewal so when the month ends you just do it over again. Not to mention everyone that was gold last week got 1 whole free month for free because cloud was down.

My Gold account expired December 2012, haven't renewed it and don't plan too. Not having a gold account makes my 360 seem worthless now though, like a car missing an integral part that isn't worth fixing.

I may even sell my 360 as I'm starting to really appreciate my PS3 lately. Looks like all my future multiplats will be on PS3 for the foreseeable future, which is OK cause all my friends switched over to PS3-only a while ago for the free online anyways.

$60 per year to play online is about $30 too much for me. The apps and other stuff certainly isn't worth the high surcharge.

It seems the US is the only place where 360 does well now, PS3 dominates every other market. I live in Canada and don't know anyone that has a 360 anymore. They all switched to PS3 after their consoles broke or just sold it for PS3s free online.

But the problem is so many people pay for XBL, which means Microsoft will think: "Wow. We're actually making money from this. Stuff those people who disagree with us. XBL WILL ALWAYS BE A PAID SERVICE!!!"

Another thing people bring up is lag on PSN, which is ridiculous. There's lag on both sides, when I was on Live I got kicked about every 15 minutes from a party chat, or randomly disconnected. And now with PSN Plus, I just can't justify paying $50 for cross game chat and a prettier display.

I just renewed my annual gold subscription for $30. I wasn't too happy about it, but it's the best way to play multiplayer. Forget about most PS3 owners not having a mic, PSN is a gimped service compared to Xbox Live. Chat, Invites, UI, etc.

PS+ will force M$ to do better next gen. But until that time multiplayer gamers don't have a choice.

If your happy paying for online play...thats fine, maybe I should make some extra money off you too and buy some MS shares. Try and respect and educate yourself to the fact people have been gaming online for free, years before the xbox existed.

Lol the reason why I don't even bother with Multiplayer games is because of the mic. Just a bunch of pre puberty kids screaming every time they die or yelling "I'm the best" when they get a kill. I just use Skype if I wanna communicate with friends online. It's free too.

I stopped paying this past November. It was hard to give up 7 years, but I have to agree that I don't think it is worth the price anymore. In the beginning, I was amazed that the online experience was so cohesive with the OS. Now, we have Steam, SEN and even Miiverse and they are free.

I know people are going to say it is not 60 dollars and you are right, you can find it for cheaper. However, when there are free services that offer the same thing and in some cases more, I had to eliminate my LiVE account.

I have both and can tell you that PSN is where it is today because of XBL. I actually prefer my PS3 over my 360 for multiplats, but besides the fee (which is still not a big deal), XBL was the model that Sony followed to better PSN. Its really as simple as that.

PSN would look very different if XBL did not come first and I really don't think anyone can argue.

With that said, XBL never stopped being the "gold standard." XBL doesn't stop being the gold standard because a bunch of people who don't like anything about the 360 or MS don't like the fact that it isn't free and other people don't mind paying the insignificant fee.

You can pretend to downplay the popularity and success of XBL but that doesn't make it disappear. Nest gen, when PSN is still free and has some of the obvious features that it lacked this gen then XBL will no longer be the gold standard. It will happen, it just hasn't happened yet.

I'm not a fan of xbl but I agree with your comment. PSN did pretty much follow XBL when it came to online. I remember when I first got my ps3 and how I refused to play on PSN in it's current state due to how terrible it was. But as it start to take after XBL it got better.

Absolute credit to XBL for forcing Sony to improve their service to the point that MS now has reason to do the same.

The 10 million hardware lead is gone, so it's time for the pay model to reflect that and evolve. Apps like Youtube, IE, Netflix, Twitter and even the discontinued Facebook shoulda been open to Silver users. Period. Competition is great though cuz it forces these guys to look at what they offer, bang for buck. Remember no in-game messaging on PSN, no in-game XMB, the awful Konami log-ins for MGO, no scrolling game tickers on friend profiles, no premium avatars, no trophies, no blocking, no custom soundtracks period, no Plus, no Home? I do.

We've come a long way. From the "haz no gaemz" memes to this. Both systems became better because they had to and subsequently leapfrogged eachother at different points, while the Wii just kinda went on in its own lil' SD bubble.

The worst thing that could happen to the PS3 is for Microsoft to make XBL free. Xbox 360 sales in Europe in particular would asplode, and the xbox would start to pull away from the PS3 again, because as of right now, the XBL fee does in fact make the xbox 360 quite a bit more expensive than the PS3.

I mean if you look at the costs of the consoles over three years, the xbox is like a $600 dollar console, and the PS3 only costs 1/3 of the xbox and it only manages to sell a tiny bit more.

PS3 fanboys are taking EXACTLY the wrong tact here... Should the xbox 360 get free XBL at CES this month for example, it would add 5 years to the life of the xbox, and the Xbox 360 would end the generations by far and away the number one console of the generation.

The crushing effect that this would have on the ego PS3 fanboys could be life threatening.

I love steam because I prefer my PC. But if you forgot about the subscription fee for just a moment, XBL is (in my opinion) a much better, connected experience compared to Sonys (and Nintendo) service. But MS are a software and OS company. It comes as no surprise, to me anyway.

The PSN is great, does everything you need it to and more, but it's not as easy or enjoyable to use (again, IMO).

Are you speaking of strictly playing games online, or are you speaking of using the psn store? I just don't understand what you mean when you say " it's not as easy or enjoyable to use." What does that mean? When you say "prefer the games," are you talking about multiplats or exclusives?

I have no problems paying for live. Iv'e never paid full price. I don't see MS doing away with fee. It makes them money so it will most likely stay. I do see them adding even more stuff to it next gen. There are some misconceptions out there about the service though. Some think that you have to pay for xbox live which isn't true. It's the gold service that you pay for. It's more about choices. Some chose to pay for it and others won't. That's the beauty of it. If you decide yes, you can just pay for a limited time and you don't have to pay the full 60 bucks. There are always deals out there. I would rather pay for a year of live than sign a contract for cell phone or cable TV which we all know is a sure rip off.

If you just bought the, lets say, new COD for example, without Xbox Live Gold, you basically payed twice as much, and you're getting half of the feature you were promised with. Sure, there's the campaign (gold not needed), and you can still play Zombies and mutiplayer, but you can only play them by yourself, or with splitscreen. You HAVE to pay for Gold to access the other half of a game (if it has multiplayer multiplayer). That's a RIP-OFF. With the Wii U, PSN, and Steam, you can access ALL of the features of a game, without having to pay for another service just to access the online features for it. Sure, there's a bajillion Xbox Live Gold offers every day, but really, when 3/4 of the gaming hardwares are offering FREE ONLINE, then you're sticking out like a sore thumb. And what do you mean "limited time"? You're still paying for it, despite the offers doing it for free. Even a lot of the Xbox 360 console's features are locked out. You want to watch Netflix? Oops too bad. In addition to paying $9.99 (or however much it costs) for the Netflix subscription, you have to buy Xbox Live Gold subscription!! The PC, Wii U, and PS3 all have access to Netflix for free! Just put in your account, and you're good to go! I don't know why you compared Live with a cell phone or cable TV subscription, when they are "rip-offs".

I once a read a comment that said "Gaming is a very expensive luxury", and I somewhat agree to that. However, I hate to repeat this, but when 3 of the 4 major gaming hardwares offer free online, Xbox Live Gold sticks out like a sore thumb.

*note: A working Internet connection must be required to access said online features too. However, if you can read this, you probably have an Internet connection anyways... Unless you're reading this from work, a friend/family's house, school library, etc.

If you don't pay for the gold service then you are locked out of the full experience of games containing online elements. If you want that full experience then that choice to pay for gold or not is taken away.

So in essence your choices are (minus features) pay Microsoft for full access to your games (games which Microsoft already take a substantial cut from) or don't and have access blocked to portions of your games.

Ok, the cost isn't great when you break it down over time, but it's still an extra cost that no other platform demands.

not true 100 percent. live has had free weekends every month. 48 hour trials with games my halo 4 has 14 day trial. only thing free psn offers is online play all the time.

psn+ is same as live gold with different options. Psn still doesnt have voice message, party chat, custom music. Psn as a whole doesnt have nearly as much content, slower dl speeds, longer installs, takes longer to get patches and has worst 3rd party games support

@Jetlian The right to open apps and the browser has always been free as well. There's certainly no free-to-play Gold equivalent to the DC Universe Online or Dust514 MMOAGs. Preference I guess is subjective, but your list of negatives is mostly relegated to system memory rather than service value. Plus and Gold are actually very different.

Party chat for example is a hardware issue. Memory. Hence why the Vita has no cross game blabbing issues. Hell, it does cross *play*. Not really applicable here. 360 hardware lacks its own features that a Gold sub' can't resolve, like the lack of DTS/DTS HD/Dolby HD/7.1 lcpm audio or BluRay's elimination of disc swapping. Cloud is another issue. PS Plus Cloud backups circumvent all DRM. Gold's doesn't. I can back up ME3 to PSN cloud but not Gold cloud.

You mention installs, but again that's got nothing to do with Plus and Gold as services either. Nor does what I presume you define 3rd party support to be. Fact is, paying for Plus gets you full regional 3rd party downloads like SSF4, Borderlands, Tomb Raider Underworld, FC2, JC2, SR2, BioShock2, Ratchet&Clank:All4One (Insomniac is 3rd party), Arkham City, Vanquish and various Arcade games from Trine2 to JetSetRadio. I even got $5 off my Walking Dead season pass. Paying for Gold got me none of those perks. Yeah I got Walking Dead Ep1 for free over XMas with Gold, but that's a month after I'd already platinumed it on PSN, and more months still after Ep1 AND Ep2 were up for "free" on Plus.

True perks like the early RE6 demo on Gold aren't as prevalent these days. I need to see more if I'm to renew next year. I bought Prey last year and enjoyed it, but have exactly zero online achievements cuz the community is dead anyways, Gold for naught. Paying for access to dead online games is lame. At least open up old games to Silver then.

wow lol. Walking dead was 10 dollars last week for the whole thing(5 eps) on LIVE!!! which is 15 dollars in savings so keep your 5 dollars

Every game you mentioned in plus is 2-3 years old. That one of the problems with it. And for 3rd party support I was talking about how the games run and when you get patches later.

PSN downloads then installs which 360 does not do. once the DL is done you can play also the DL are faster. Happy wars is free for gold members

True perks like RE6 demo? wheres fez, minecraft, trials,mark of the ninja, deadlight,dust, kung fu strike,dungeon fighter, and thats not all the xbla games released this year that arent on psn.

Did psn get torchlight, bastion, guardian heroes from 2011. took 2 years to get braid and castle crashers, limbo year later.

Live got me 5 dollars off trials, 7.50 off deadlight, 7.50 off deus ex dlc. Got 5 back for spending 50 bucks in feb and 5 dollars last year in oct 2011 and more. thats 25 dollars I save right there could have been more if I waited for some sales in 2012.

Well, why wouldn't I keep my $5.00? I had platinumed the entire Walking Dead season (with an extra 500gs btw) on PSN a month before the XBLA sale even hit. You talk about old games on PS Plus in the negative, yet praise a sale on XBLA 8 months after the PS Plus one?

Every Plus game I listed isn't "2-3 years old" either. Trine2 went free in May 2012, just 6 months after release, with a platinum. Not 2-3 years later. JetSetRadio just came out in September 2012. Ratchet & Clank All4One went free after 8 months. DCUO went free-to-play without Plus. IGN loved Dust http://ca.ign.com/articles/... . Gold can do better than Happy Wars imo.

Off topic there about 3rd party game performance. Gold didn't make Hitman Absolution or ME1 run better on the 360 according to Digital Foundry. Article's about the paid Gold service vs free Silver, not hardware performance.

You mention patches as well, still off topic. But you do realise that Konami patched the Silent Hill HD Collection for the PS3 but aren't for the 360, opting to leave it broken http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... right? Patches aren't always a bad thing, Gold or not.

Off topic again bringing up console exclusives like Fez, Mark of the Ninja, Minecraft which you don't need a Gold Membership to buy. We were talking about the monetary value of Gold subscriptions. Trials Evolution isn't a Gold perk. I bought it with a Silver. For the early RE6/Forza Horizons demos...I needed Gold. That's what I mean by perks. Game swag you can't get with a Silver sub' OR on the other consoles. I'd like to see more of that to justify Gold's price, like the 1 week early exclusive Dead Space 3 demo coming up.

PSN getting Braid after XBL is off topic again. XBLA has had to wait for odds'sods too like Joe Danger, Kung Fu Live/Impact. And again, they're available just the same to free Silver members.

Anyway, I do believe standard MP should be a given right out of the box.

"Xbox Live: No Longer The Golden Standard." Never was in the first place? Its just a great service for customized tailored gaming and a streamlined experience, a constantly changing and evolving service and allot of people prefer it. MS does do dirty cheap discounts and even give away a (few) games for free also. P2P should be a welcome to Xbox users

Listen, these articles are old and over done. At this point its Over Kill. Yes, come next gen I would want MS to open up the console, Standard MP right out of the box. And overall bring more to the table as far as subscriptions.

XBL is far from perfect but it must be doing something right for people to up keep there subscriptions and consumers to buy into it.

Paying for LIVE is the only way you can enjoy the multiplayer part of 360 games. So most people are obligated to buy the service just to play COD or HALO. Its business for MS, and a good one as long as people dont have other choice. Dont blame MS, blame yourself for support a service that no matter how good or bad it is, others have it for FREE.

@taylork37 Blame Sony for what? Making a great online service that is almost, or even on par with Xbox Live, even though it's free, and also offers more features without locking them out? Also, I can ask you the same thing. Why is it that Steam, a FREE service, is MILES (exaggeration) ahead of Xbox Live, a paid service? They have more deals, more games, better security, mods available, etc. What does Xbox Live, despite a few exclusives and decent deals, have?

Instead of blaming Sony, why don't you look at Microsoft, and ask yourself, "Why is my precious Xbox Live Gold just slightly better than PSN, and why is it not better than STEAM?".